Message-ID: <47e801481db9947c4a597575ad45e1c6304130ca.camel@cybertec.at>
Subject: Re: unnest multirange, returned order
From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
To: Daniel Fredouille <daniel.fredouille@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2023 09:20:16 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CAEpV6kX9PJAuQ_=5c7ZxCSASu76hkvGfVvwU6WkHTRXzApknfQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
	<169627213477.3727338.17653654241633692682@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
	 <2bad53942920d2e501661af4cd49d6644a22b801.camel@cybertec.at>
	 <CAEpV6kX9PJAuQ_=5c7ZxCSASu76hkvGfVvwU6WkHTRXzApknfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.48.4 (3.48.4-1.fc38) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/47e801481db9947c4a597575ad45e1c6304130ca.camel%40cybertec.at>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 2023-10-03 at 20:40 -0400, Daniel Fredouille wrote:
> > I'd say that the storag order is the order in which PostgreSQL stores
> > multiranges internally:
>=20
> Right, I believe that you are right but then this information is not usef=
ul for the developer.=C2=A0
> If storage order is always ascending by range order then let's make it cl=
ear,
> if order cannot be counted upon as it may evolve from postgres version to=
 version,
> then let's make it clear as well. WDYT ?

I personally think that it is clear as it is written now.

If you have a good suggestion for an improvement, you could send it;
perhaps someone will pick it up.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe